Diamond v. Chakrabarty
| Diamond v. Chakrabarty | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 17, 1980 Decided June 16, 1980 |
|
| Full case name | Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, v. Ananda M. Chakrabarty, et al. |
| Citations | 447 U.S. 303 (more)
100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2d 144, 206 U.S.P.Q. 193
|
| Prior history | Application of Bergy, 596 F.2d 952 (C.C.P.A. 1979); cert. granted, 444 U.S. 924 (1979) |
| Holding | |
| Living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the Patent Act of 1952. The fact that the organism sought to be patented is alive is no bar to patentability. Decision of the Court of Customs & Patent Appeals affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by White, Marshall, Powell |
| Laws applied | |
| Patent Act of 1952, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 101 | |
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented.
Genetic engineer Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, working for General Electric, had developed a bacterium (derived from the Pseudomonas genus and now known as Pseudomonas putida) capable of breaking down crude oil, which he proposed to use in treating oil spills. General Electric filed a patent application for the bacterium in the United States listing Chakrabarty as the inventor, but the application was rejected by a patent examiner, because under patent law at that time, living things were generally understood to not be patentable subject matter under Section 101 of Title 35 U.S.C.
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences agreed with the original decision; however, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the case in Chakrabarty's favor, writing, "the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law." Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980. The patent was granted by the USPTO on Mar 31, 1981.
In 1972, Ananda Chakrabarty filed a patent for a genetically modified bacterium that was capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. He developed this bacterium by engineering a way for multiple plasmids, each of which is able to break down different hydrocarbon components of the crude oil, to be incorporated into a single bacterium. The multiple plasmids would allow bacteria to break down oil from oil spills at a much quicker rate, and they would not be as affected by environmental conditions. The patent for this genetically modified bacterium that Chakrabarty filed contained three claims: How he produced the bacterium, an "inoculum composed of a carrier material and the bacterium", and the bacterial species itself. The first two claims were accepted, but the claim on the bacteria was rejected, under the grounds that the bacteria are naturally occurring, and as living organisms, cannot be patented.
...
Wikipedia